Standing Committee A

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Clause 35 - Police powers for police authority employees

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 34, line 30, leave out 'provisions specifying the'.
 Good morning, Mr. Stevenson. Welcome back to the Chair. The amendment is short, but fundamental. As drafted, the Bill will allow chief officers to confer on community support officers or civilian employees the powers that are listed under schedule 4. It is interesting that they will not have that discretion in respect of accredited community safety schemes under schedule 5, which is an all-or-nothing schedule. 
 Now is not the time to debate the powers themselves. That will be dealt with under a later group of amendments. We have fewer reservations about investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers, but I want to discuss whether CSOs should all have the same powers or whether a chief officer should have the power to vary them within his own force. I am the first to recognise that arguments can be made on both sides. The importance of local decision making has been raised several times. I cannot get away from that, but the downside of variations is worse than the advantages. Therefore, we should remove the discretion of chief officers to decide which powers to confer on CSOs. Under schedule 4—assuming that the Government have their way on other issues—up to 13 different powers will be available for community support officers, six for investigating officers, 11 for detention officers and escort officers are covered by two main broad headings. 
 Members of the Committee have expressed concern about the need to avoid confusion. However, the clause will cause considerable confusion because each chief officer can confer on CSOs different powers from the menu of 13 that may be different from the powers that the chief officer of the neighbouring force may adopt. I understand that, even within the force, the chief officer could designate different CSOs with different permutations of those 13 police powers. The Minister will say whether I am right or wrong. The main demand for CSOs powers will come from the Metropolitan police, but we must also bear in mind the probability that there will be variations from borough to borough and within the 43 forces throughout the country. 
 It is the consumer—the public, whom such people will serve—about whom I am most concerned. People do not necessarily know in which force's area they are working, living, shopping or spending their leisure 
 time, for example. Therefore they will not know what powers a CSO with whom they come in contact may have. I understand that a police constable is a police constable is a police constable, whichever part of Britain he happens to be in, and has the powers of a constable. The same applies to a police officer of any rank: he will have the powers of a constable. If we have CSOs with a variety of powers, the member of the public involved will not know what powers they have. 
 I give an example from my constituency—which does not include the possibility of variations within a force. Part of my constituency is on the southern outskirts of Newmarket, which most people think is in Suffolk, as, indeed, most of it is. The county boundary, although precise, is indistinct for the casual person. Some of my constituency and, therefore, part of Cambridgeshire, is in Newmarket. Therefore, a person in one street might be in the Cambridgeshire force, and have one set of powers, and someone in the next street or even in an extension of the same street, where it runs into Suffolk, might have a different set of powers. To me, that is a recipe for confusion. From confusion comes discredit and ridicule of the situation as daft and difficult to understand, and the whole thing falls into disrepute. 
 In the debate on the matter in the other place, many points were made extremely well. In moving the appropriate amendment, my noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith said: 
''The way in which the Bill is drafted means that a community support officer who has a limited basket of powers, because that is the way that the chief constable has designated him, may work with another community support officer who has a different basket of powers because he may have come from a slightly different area or . . . be held to have a different level of competence. The opportunity for public confusion as to what these people are and how they are functioning is huge.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 418.]
 Another noble Lord said something especially apposite: 
''Although I cannot prejudge what will happen, I can well foresee different chief constables making different use of the 'menu'. If they make different use of the powers so that their community support officers have different powers, the public might well wonder why that has happened.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 452.]
 That was the noble Lord Rooker—the Minister responsible at the time. 
 The Association of Police Authorities states clearly that 
''CSOs must be standardised with the rest of the service to ensure that they are instantly recognisable to the public and their role is properly understood.''
 The Police Federation—which opposes CSOs having powers, although that is not the matter under discussion—states: 
''Each will be given one, some or all of the powers from the basket of powers provided in the Bill. This is a recipe for confusion and disorder: how will a member of the public know whether a particular CSO has the power to demand their name and address or to detain them''—
 which is another issue— 
''pending the arrival of a constable?''
 Others have made similar remarks, and I shall not detain the Committee. However, if the spectre that 
 that conjures up were not so serious, it could be farcical. A CSO could have powers to use, for example, force, or to confiscate alcohol, require a name and address or seize a vehicle, yet another CSO in the same force, in the same street, perhaps a few feet away, will not have those powers. How will the public know? All will have the CSO designated uniform, whatever it may be, but the public will not know who has what powers. 
 Moreover, even if all CSOs in a force have the same powers, because of the geography of this country, officers of adjoining forces will police in close proximity to one another. They will police adjoining streets and, indeed, in some towns, different sides of the same street, as county, borough or authority boundaries sometimes run down the centre of a road. We might have the absurd situation that a lout on one side of the street, carrying a can of alcohol, behaving badly and cursing and swearing, can be detained by the CSO, but if he crosses to the other side or goes into the next street, he cannot be detained or have his alcohol confiscated. That would bring the whole concept into disrepute. 
 This is not a debate about CSOs' powers; we will discuss that later. As CSOs are to be introduced, we want them to be successful. The last thing that we want is for them to fall into disrepute, and for the public to treat them with ridicule.

Colin Challen: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, and I wonder whether he would extend it to the issue of having different laws in different parts of the country. For example, some local authorities have byelaws banning the consumption of alcohol on their streets, and others do not. As he is against CSOs having different powers in different places, does his argument also apply to the eradication of all differing byelaws, of which there must be hundreds?

James Paice: That is a perfectly good point, and I prefaced my opening remarks by saying that I recognise that there are arguments both ways. I wholly support the concept of local byelaws, and those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which are eminently sensible. It is a pity that not every authority has decided to go down that route, because such byelaws will be necessary if we are to restore the order that most of us ordinary, law-abiding peaceful civilians would like to have on our streets.
 When talking about CSOs, we are discussing acts that are widely recognised by the public to be illegal, and not byelaws. There have been variations in byelaws for many decades; the public have got used to that. Byelaws are usually made visible, for example by placards or notices that say, ''No dog fouling. Penalty x, y or z,'' so people are aware of them. There is no way that someone will know what powers a CSO officer wearing a uniform has simply by looking at him.

Norman Baker: Is there not a difference, philosophically and practically between the existence
 of different laws and the enforcement of laws by persons with differing powers.

James Paice: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right; there is a difference. People can usually establish fairly quickly what the law is in a particular place. They can do so by reading notices, which are often put up, or by going to the police station or town hall, or by many other means if they are interested in knowing whether they can get drunk in a particular street and wave alcohol about.
 However, there will be no way for people to tell what powers a CSO has if chief officers grant different CSOs different arrays of power from within schedule 4. They cannot even go to the police station to ask about it unless they have the name and number of a particular CSO. They will not have any means of understanding what the situation is from the uniform.

Meg Munn: Surely most of us, who are law abiding citizens, do not worry about that, because we assume that we are within the law and are behaving reasonably. Those who flout the law do not worry about that either. It is for a local police force to determine the problems of behaviour and the issues in its area, just as it does with byelaws. It could therefore use its members as appropriate. That would be better than people worrying about who is doing what.

James Paice: I do not think that the hon. Lady's argument necessarily follows. Of course, the vast majority of the population are perfectly reasonable, law-abiding citizens and assume that everything that we do is law-abiding. Those people would not, therefore, worry about the nitty-gritty of what is or is not illegal on a particular street. She is right. However, to move on from that and say that therefore the powers of CSOs should vary is a non sequitur. There would be serious grounds for confusion.
 Despite what the hon. Lady said, we envisage CSO's using their powers in marginal situations rather than in cases involving serious crimes—issues of disorder, or antisocial behaviour, for example. Whether behaviour is antisocial is sometimes a matter of subjective judgment. Therefore, we must be consistent in determining what constitutes a power of a CSO. A situation such as I described could arise—people could be apprehended by a CSO for acting anti-socially on one side of the street but not if they go into the next street. I submit to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), that that is not what the general public would want. 
 If somebody is acting antisocially, by drinking alcohol in an antisocial manner, generally behaving unpleasantly and disrupting the community, they should be apprehended by a CSO and dealt with wherever that may be—if a CSO is to have the power to do so. That is what police officers do. If people behave antisocially any police officer can deal with them. If we are going to have CSOs, the same should apply.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman said that there are arguments on both sides. One of the most important things to remember about the potential employment of CSOs is that it is an innovative scheme. As such, there will be local variations in the need for and the requirements of CSOs. Best value is one argument in favour of variation. We should see how CSOs work in different conditions so that forces in different basic command units can learn from each other. It is inevitable that they will converge into a set model, but for the moment, we should proceed with this innovative scheme by allowing for variability within certain constructions.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. However, we are talking about something totally new. These officers are not neighbourhood or community wardens, but people with a considerable level of police power, which has so far applied only to traffic wardens. If we have CSOs, I hope that the public will readily take to them, recognise and appreciate them and give them credibility.
 We all know that a bad reputation is easily gained and quickly lost. By having variations in powers, I worry that the public will quickly start to discredit the principle of CSOs because of the sort of situation that I described, and it will take years to undo the damage caused by that initial impression.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Surely it should be incumbent upon the various divisional commanders to ensure that they co-operate effectively and that we do not have the sort of boundary problems described by the hon. Gentleman, which would fly in the face of best practice across all aspects of the public sector. We should allow CSOs varied powers, at least in the early stages of this new innovation, and have guidelines that ensure that they work together effectively, in their local neighbourhoods and across boundaries.

James Paice: Obviously, I am all in favour of commanders working together. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he supported Government proposals to override that, and for the Secretary of State to make those sorts of decisions, so he cannot have it both ways.
 If we are to have CSOs, we all want them to work, but I am concerned that if we start off with the amount of confusion that I have described, there is a risk that they will quickly fall into public disrepute and be ridiculed, and then the whole thing will begin to collapse around our ears. None of us wants that to happen, which is why we should remove this discretion from chief officers.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he understands to be the meaning of clause 35(5). It says:
''A person designated under this section shall have the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him the designation.''
 That implies to me that it is the designation, rather than the choice of the chief officer, that gives the powers and duties to a CSO.

George Stevenson: Order. I am unclear whether that relates to the amendment.

James Paice: I have raised the question of whether the chief officer will have the power to vary the powers of different CSOs within his force. The hon. Lady is right to raise that point—notwithstanding your comment, Mr. Stevenson—because it lies behind my earlier question. My reading of the legislation—and of others' interpretation of it, including that of the Police Federation—is that the chief officer will have the discretion as to whether to give the same powers to all of his CSOs, or to vary them.
 The amendment deals with subsection (6), where the second line makes it clear that the chief officer will have the discretion to choose which of the 13 powers he wishes to give to his CSOs—that that is the case is also apparent from earlier comments from Labour Members. In my mind, there is also no doubt that he will also be able to give different powers to his CSOs. 
 I have made my case in the way that I wanted to. I recognise that there are arguments the other way, but if this measure is to work, we will need consistency and clarity in the legislation. There is a serious risk that if the powers are allowed to vary in different parts of the country—from borough to borough, and even street to street—we will not get the consistency and clarity that we have sought to put into this Bill.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The points raised by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) relate to four points that I made on Second Reading, two of which were as follows:
''If the CSOs are to command support in post, they must first be recognisable, which means that they must have a common uniform. Secondly, they must have one set of powers that does not vary between areas''—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 81.]
 The other two related to later clauses. 
 The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the argument that there is no consistency between the powers of traffic wardens in different areas. If, for example, traffic wardens in Bromley are responsible for double yellow lines and traffic wardens in York are responsible only for single yellow lines and dotted lines, there would be uncertainty over their role and they would not command the support that they do. Someone in Lewes may know how far they can go with CSOs and when they go to Wrexham, they may behave accordingly, only to be detained by CSOs who do have extra powers. That, in turn, could lead to detention and an escalation in confrontation because of lack of clarity. It is wrong to give community support officers powers that are, to a degree, antagonistic and liable to cause friction with people against whom the CSO wishes to enforce the powers. We shall address the powers in later amendments. 
 A CSO might want to exercise a power that is controversial—at least with regard to the person against whom it is exercised. If the power is used in one part of the country but not another, that could cause confusion and uncertainty. What happens if a person lives on the edge of a part of the country in which the chief constable gives the minimum amount of power to CSOs? Of course, many chief constables are opposed to giving powers to CSOs. That is consistent with the need to gain community support. 
 I think that it is a likely scenario, by the way. In order to maximise support in the community, chief constables might not wish to give CSOs powers that will antagonise those with whom they come in contact. In other places, CSOs might be given the full panoply of support that is in the Bill. 
 What will happen if people live in an area in which they know, if they are streetwise enough, that if they see a CSO standing in the street when they come out of the pub after a few drinks, the CSO cannot touch them? What would happen if those people wandered across the border to a London borough for a drink with a friend? The CSO there could use an entirely different response. Such people would assert, with some knowledge because of experience elsewhere, that the CSO does not have certain powers, such as the power to seize alcohol. That would be more likely to result in a fracas or confrontation than if powers were understood and consistent throughout the country. Ministers in the Lords failed to address that point properly. 
 I refer the Minister to a Police Federation of England and Wales briefing that said: 
''Each CSO will be given one, some, or all of the powers from the vast array of powers provided in the Bill. This is the recipe for confusion and disorder. How will a member of the public know whether a particular CSO has the power to demand their name and address or to detain them using reasonable force for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable?''
 That paragraph does not address whether CSOs should be in place; we will have to know the views of the Police Federation of England and Wales on that. It is a valid observation and a criticism of the Government's proposals by police officers who know about policing. Their experience on the street shows that there is likely to be a problem. The Minister cannot simply brush that point away because he must realise that people with experience make it. 
 There is also widespread confusion about the different types of officers that the Bill will create. I mention that now because it is germane to the accountability point. If CSOs are to be accepted by the community, they must command support by wearing a common uniform and having the same powers. If they wear a common uniform but have different powers, it will be difficult for the public to understand that. It will be a complete shambles if CSOs throughout the country wear different uniforms and have different powers. Either way, the system will not work. 
 If we create a new tier, the public must understand who does what. I suggest that the best way to do that is for police officers—and special constables—to all have the same powers and for CSOs to all have the same powers. Frankly, traffic wardens should be wrapped up with CSOs so that we do not add to the categories of people with power any more than we must. The Minister seems to go in the opposite direction, and that is leading to mass confusion. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I hear interventions from Labour Members, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, who appear not to know what powers are 
 being suggested for particular categories. They stand up and say, ''Well, the street warden system is working very well in my part of the country.'' 
 I am sure that that is true, and I certainly support street warden systems, but that is not what the Bill proposes. It proposes something rather different, and we must get our heads around that. 
 At a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister himself used four different titles to describe CSOs. He is not clear about it, and he is in charge of the Government-—[Interruption.] Well, allegedly: we must remember Mr. Alastair Campbell. If the Prime Minister himself is not clear about what powers are being given and what titles apply, what hope is there that the general public will find them acceptable? 
 Accountability is the bedrock of acceptance of police powers. Accountability requires clarity, yet clarity is missing. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the amendment but deal with it seriously. It addresses a serious problem.

John Denham: As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, this issue can be argued both ways. He will not be surprised when I tell the Committee that some of the factors discussed this morning were considered when Ministers decided how best to frame the Bill.
 We believe that Opposition Members have reached the wrong conclusion on this matter. It is ironic that the Government should have been accused, during the passage of the Bill, of centralism and of removing some local autonomy and yet, even though this provision relies unambiguously on the local judgment, common sense and professionalism of chief police officers, both Opposition parties gang up on us and say that that is no good and that one cannot rely on those people to take sensible decisions. That is an interesting reversal of debate. 
 I shall deal with a couple of legal points first. In answer to the doubt expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I assure her that schedule 4 allows a selection of powers to be exercised by police civilians, and clause 37 does the same for accredited CSOs. There should therefore be no ambiguity about that. 
 Chapter 1 of part 4 is about local determination and flexibility. It deals with applying an appropriate policing service to an area that fits the needs of that locality. It is also the best way to introduce a new concept and approach into the police service in this country. I am not attempting to score a political point in the matter, but on Second Reading the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that he was not opposed to the idea of piloting some of the CSO powers to do with detention with the use of reasonable force. I cannot provide the exact reference, as I do not have the relevant Hansard to hand. We will no doubt return to the matter later, but one cannot say that everywhere must be standardised and then that 
 the use of some of the more controversial powers should be piloted. 
 We must also reflect the reality that, in the service as a whole, there are different views about the right combinations of powers. We all know that the Metropolitan police service wants to have CSOs with powers of detention and the use of reasonable force. My understanding from a recent conversation with the chairman of the Lancashire police authority is that that authority wants to have CSOs without those powers. 
 It is reasonable to say, at this stage of the introduction of a new concept, that local flexibility, with the ability to evaluate what happens in practice, is valuable.

Annette Brooke: Does the Minister envisage that CSOs from one police authority might be used by another, for example when forces co-operate to cover a big event? If so, CSOs working for one authority might have different powers from those granted by the authority to whom they are on loan. How on earth would that work?

John Denham: The legislation only enables a CSO to exercise the powers when they are on duty in the area covered by the force concerned. There are no cross-boundary powers. I shall come to the broader cross-boundary or street-by-street issue raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire in a moment.
 The argument used by the hon. Member for Lewes is quite interesting. He mentioned parking offences in support of his case about confusion. In some areas such offences are dealt with by police traffic wardens, and in others such offences have been decriminalised and are dealt with by local authority employees. Some local authorities have contracted out such enforcement. There is a difference between the powers of police traffic wardens and those of local authority parking attendants. It has not been brought to my attention that that has caused massive confusion in the enforcement of traffic laws up and down the country. 
 There are other variations. London parks police have different powers from other police officers on the streets of London. Under local government legislation, there are differences between the powers of London parks police and those of police in the few other areas that have analogous legislation—and, of course, those in areas that have no such legislation. Those powers are, again, different from those of the British Transport police. We do not encounter massive practical problems because of those different approaches. The public seem to be able to accept them.

Boris Johnson: I am still troubled by the problem of a CSO having power on one side of the street but not the other side. The Minister has not yet addressed that. I wonder whether he envisages there being any provision for hot pursuit by a CSO trying to apprehend a criminal, such as that provided for pursuit across state lines in America. Will it be legitimate for the CSO to exercise his powers briefly in the other borough when pursuing someone offending in his borough?

John Denham: The answer, which I thought I had already given, is no. CSOs will not be able to exercise their powers outside their police force area, whether in hot or cold pursuit. I shall come to how we expect police forces to resolve the boundary issues in practice in a moment.

George Osborne: To pick up on the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), if there were a struggle between a person and a CSO on one side of the street, and in the struggle, the person managed to get to the other side, would they then be safe?

John Denham: A degree of common sense would be required under those circumstances. Let us deal with the street boundary issue. The important point is that officers will, of course, be able to exercise only the powers that are legally available to them. The case of a CSO without a specific power attempting to exercise it over a citizen would not arise. Trying to do so would be a disciplinary offence at the very least. Indeed, there is provision in the Bill for sanctions against CSOs who attempt to exercise powers that they do not have.
 Because of the accountability of the chief officer, and the way that the legislation is set out, we should not expect CSOs to attempt to use a power that they may not exercise against a citizen.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) recognise that the picture being painted of villains perpetrating nuisance behaviour and leaping from one police force area to another is hardly likely to happen? Certainly, people in the more remote valley communities that I represent would feel blessed if they had the opportunity to travel so much.

John Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is possible to come up with a bizarre selection of powers and attempt to mock the Bill, but the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire acknowledged that one should not go too far down that road.
 I believe that we can rely on the professionalism of the chief officers, their legal duties and responsibilities and on the way in which they set up CSO schemes to select sensible powers that are appropriate to the policing needs of their area.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

John Denham: I should like to make some progress. It is reasonable for us to expect neighbouring police officers to continue to have professional discussions about cross-border issues and common problems. The alternative is that we standardise at the outset the same powers throughout the country. In the development of a new element of the police service, such standardisation would be a wrong way in which to proceed. It would deny us and the police service the ability to gain from the experience of what works effectively in practice.

Nick Hawkins: A related, but slightly different, point has been raised with me by some rank-and-file police officers in my area. One problem faced by police officers is that of drunken young men who constantly challenge authority. Does the Minister accept that,
 when new CSOs are in operation, drunken youths could say, ''You can't do that. You don't have the power.'' In one area, a CSO might have been given such a power, while in another part he may not. Rank-and- file officers are saying that such a difference will put CSOs in danger.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman raised two separate issues, the first being that someone may challenge the power of an officer. It has already been drawn to the attention of the Committee that that potential challenge could exist under the existing byelaws that govern drinking in public places. The ability of a person to challenge a police officer in one part of town and say that he cannot stop him drinking in public or confiscate the alcohol, but that he can take that action in another place is theoretically a challenge that can be mounted at the moment.
 I share the views of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. When byelaws have been brought in, they have reduced drunkenness in public places. I look to an extension of those byelaws throughout the country. The kernel of the debate is that it is possible to consider theoretical problems, but we need to look at practical circumstances under which the law potentially gives rise to anomalies, but can be dealt with in practice. A separate issue concerns the practical exercise of a power by CSOs, but CSOs operating in an area in which the chief constable had chosen not to give them powers over drinking in public places would have no business to exercise such powers. Clearly, a critical part of the exercise is to ensure that CSOs are properly trained in the exercise of the designated powers that they have been given.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the matter. However, a misapprehension has arisen from two sources. First, I spoke to the Police Federation yesterday. It said that in all probability CSOs will be used to deal with low-level problems, but that such problems are often the most difficult ones. Secondly, I shall paraphrase a series of statements that were made to me in Newark nick on Friday night. The sergeants and the constables were broadly expecting—[Interruption.] I was a guest, unlike my predecessor.

George Stevenson: Order. As members of the Committee know, I keep a wary eye on interventions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question.

Patrick Mercer: Thank you. Most of the officers accepted the fact that CSOs could be used to police the streets more effectively, but considered that their powers had to be absolutely consistent. There was to be no variety in power because they were worried that that would lead to confusion and a legal morass. I do not know whether they understand the point, but they are certainly concerned.

John Denham: I can deal with both those points. We do recognise the escalation of low-level problems, yet there has been consensus in the Committee on the role of neighbourhood and street wardens. They deal with
 low-level nuisance problems without the use of powers. On Monday, I was in Newport, an area in which neighbourhood wardens, their employers and the police are looking to use the accreditation scheme to confer additional powers. The wardens are very effective in dealing with youth nuisance around the estates, which they do on the basis of their training, their skill in interacting with members of the public and their experience in managing difficult situations.
 Theoretically, asking someone who has only civilian powers to go and talk to a group of kids hanging around the late-night off-licence could present difficulties. Neighbourhood and street wardens, who are properly trained to know when it is not appropriate to intervene, can be effective. Later on we will debate whether community safety officers and CSOs will get additional powers and proper training in the best use of those powers. Training in how to avoid conflict is an essential part of the exercise. The forces that employ CSOs will make the commitment to training and support to enable them to avoid conflict. 
 On absolute consistency, the decision for the Committee is straightforward. If the Committee were invited to include in the Bill only that set of powers on which everyone is absolutely agreed—the lowest common denominator—it would be a somewhat less extensive list than the one in the Bill as drafted. Forces such as the Metropolitan police would be unable to get what they want—the full suite of powers and a range of CSOs—and evaluate the effectiveness of the powers in practice. That would be a poor way of implementing the new legislation. 
 What can we expect down the line in terms of experience of operation use by police services as CSOs increase? Should it prove necessary, we can introduce a greater degree of standardisation—through the police's own mechanisms, such as the Association of Chief Police Officers' pooling of knowledge, through the increasing role of the National Centre for Policing Excellence that we discussed in earlier clauses and, if necessary, through the powers that exist to establish a code of practice, as under clause 2. However, that should be done on the basis of evaluated evidence of what works. 
 I am confident that diversity will decrease in a few years' time. As best, police practice is identified, and there will be a coming together of key elements. That is not to say that it will be standard across the country. The needs of a police service in a dense metropolitan area will always be different from those in rural areas. However, we should expect the police service and the framework that we are developing in the Bill to tackle any real anomalous problems that may arise.

Norman Baker: I have listened to the Minister with great care, as always. Will he put on record whether he believes philosophically that CSOs across the country should have a uniform that is recognisable and in common, or whether the local variations to which he referred require separate uniforms?

John Denham: The key issue is to ensure that CSOs are identifiable by members of the public. There is no absolute standardisation of traffic warden uniforms, for example, but most are identifiable as such wherever
 one goes and whoever employs them. It is a professional issue and one that the service will carefully examine. The key test is that there should be no confusion by members of the public about whether a person is a CSO. That is extremely important.
 I do not want to anticipate a later debate, but in practice neighbourhood wardens and street wardens do not all wear the same uniform, if we can call it a uniform. They tend to wear distinctive dress and insignia, and are recognised in the communities that they serve.

Paul Stinchcombe: Before the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) intervened, my right hon. Friend was making a powerful case for local flexibility. However, one matter still troubles me. I do not see why, to avoid confusion, we cannot give all the CSOs standard powers and then leave how those powers are exercised in individual areas to the operational decision making of the respective forces.

John Denham: Few of those in the police service whom we consulted would have welcomed the idea of employing a group of people with legal powers but, at an operational level, leaving it to the chief constable to instruct them whether to exercise those powers. The preference is for the approach that we have taken, which is that the decision is for the chief officer. We could have legislated for what I described as the lowest common denominator set of powers, and then allowed others discretion. However, on balance when we drafted the Bill, we felt it best to allow the approach that we used.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being patient. Will the system allow a chief constable to vary the powers regularly, if he so decides? He might decide that one power should be withdrawn if it had caused problems, and that another should be added. What process has to be gone through to add powers?

John Denham: The chief officer would be able to change the powers of CSOs. I might suddenly receive an urgent message from the people from whom I receive urgent messages, but my recollection is that the Bill does not lay down a different specific procedure for dealing with that. As we discussed on Tuesday, we expect the matter to be discussed by the chief officer and the police authority. It is sensible to expect police officers not to make sudden and arbitrary changes on a repeated basis over a period. I cannot imagine that any chief officer would want to do that. After all, they remain responsible for the activity of the CSOs and the delivery—

Norman Baker: Help is at hand.

John Denham: Yes, but the help at hand confirms what I thought, which is that the ability to modify the designation does not require a separate procedure. On some issues, we believe that chief officers will handle the use of the powers sensibly, and that there is a point at which we should not prescribe every dot and comma of how they go about doing it.

James Paice: As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has responded. I readily accepted in my opening remarks that some of his arguments were clear and one had to understand them, although we may come to a different conclusion. However, some of his remarks would have been best left unsaid, not least the suggestion that the motive for the amendment is that we believe that chief officers will not make sensible decisions. I find that quite offensive, and the motive is far from it.
 As the Minister said in other contexts, throughout the Committee's proceedings we have been in favour of allowing chief officers much more flexibility, which would lead us to the view that he chose to take on the amendment. The credibility of the scheme is so critical that consistency is important. We are not concerned with whether sensible decisions are made, but whether we have a consistent system that the public will understand and appreciate. 
 It is rather disingenuous to say that there would automatically be variation simply because we have made noises about support for pilots. By their very nature, pilots will mean variation. That does not mean to say that the whole system should have variation under the Bill. At this stage, there is no question of pilots anyway. We will have that debate later, if at all. We can deal only with the parts of the Bill that we have reached. It is correct to say that parks police and some transport police have different powers, but that is a minute point. Few people come across parks police, and most understand that they have fewer powers. Hardly anybody ever sees a transport policeman. I use the railways a lot, but I have never seen one on a train to my constituency or around the country. 
 In response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), the Minister said that few who had been consulted were in favour of the discretion to add to a minimum level of powers. I would add that few whom the Minister consulted wanted CSOs at all. The fact is, as the hon. Member for Lewes observed, they are almost going to be forced upon them—[Hon. Members: ''No, they are not.'']—Hon. Members may not think that that is the case, but we established in previous debates that the Government intend to set up a ring-fenced fund to promote CSOs. Chief constables may find that their only way to access money for more person-power on the streets is to use CSOs, whether they like them or not.

Ian Lucas: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the imposition of CSOs by the Home Secretary, why is he arguing against the ability of separate chief constables to determine what powers those officers have?

James Paice: In my view that is a nonsensical question. I am in favour of more money for more manpower on the streets. However, I believe that chief constables should have complete discretion—with the authority—as to whether to spend it on CSOs or on more officers. Most of the chief constables to whom I have spoken would rather have two regular officers than three CSOs. The point is that powers must have public credibility. That is my theme for the morning.
 We have considered the Minister's points and he has not convinced us. If the innovation is to work, it must have credibility with the public and that can be achieved only with a level of consistency that I fear will be removed by the Bill as it stands. I wish to press the amendment to a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in line 37, at end insert
'except that the powers conferred on a detention officer can only be exercised in the presence of and on the direction of a constable.'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 48, in schedule 4, page 126, line 14, leave out from 'shall' to 'in' in line 15 and insert
'only exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph'.
 No. 49, in page 126, line 22, at end insert— 
'(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.
 No. 50, in page 126, line 31, at end insert— 
'(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.
 No. 51, in page 126, line 37, at end insert— 
'(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.
 No. 52, in page 128, line 16, at end insert— 
'(2) A person shall not exercise any powers of search by virtue of paragraphs (b) to (i) of sub-paragraph (l) except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.
 No. 53, in page 129, line 48, at end insert— 
'(2) A person shall not exercise any powers of entry and search by virtue of this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.
 No. 54, in page 130, line 30, at end insert— 
'(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers of seizure by virtue of this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.
 No. 30, in schedule 5, page 137, line 23, at end insert— 
'(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.

James Paice: We move to the power of CSOs. The reason we tabled the amendments relates to the philosophy of CSOs and to how we feel that they can best be used in the community. We firmly believe that any new tier of people with police powers must be acceptable to the community. As we have seen with the street warden schemes in Newport and other places, it is best if such people gain the support of the community so that they can, effectively, police by consent. It is more productive if they gain the tolerance and aid of the community, and work with the agreement of the community rather than exercising powers that may be antagonistic in certain circumstances. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) laughs. There is nothing wrong with trying to gain support for a particular end in a non-confrontational way. In fact, it is a sensible solution—hard cop, soft cop. Police officers have a full range of powers to come down hard on people, if necessary, and another group of people can cajole and achieve the correct result in a non-threatening way. That ideal will be spoilt if CSOs are given powers that will bring them into confrontation with members of the public, and they will be exposed to ridicule, attack or at least lack of support, if they do not receive full training as necessary. The Minister will doubtless tell the Committee that they will receive full training, but the Police Federation and others are concerned about that.
 The amendments would remove those powers, which will undermine respect and support for CSOs. They would thereby increase their effectiveness. As Labour Members have testified in Committee and on Second Reading, it is possible for schemes, such as street warden schemes, to operate successfully with the consent of the community and to achieve the ends for which they were established. A moment ago, the Minister was waxing lyrical about the effectiveness of one particular scheme. I am delighted to hear of that success, which brings into question whether further powers are needed to bring about those same results.

John Denham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for going out of my way to say that the scheme in Newport is looking to gain extra powers under this legislation. That hardly makes the case that extra powers are unnecessary.

Norman Baker: Yes, I readily accept that the Minister said that, but he also said that the scheme was working well.

George Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Stockport scheme, near my constituency, which was one of the first warden schemes in the country, does not want more powers? It is feared that it would break down the bond of trust between wardens and the Stockport community if they were seen to be more like police officers than neighbourhood wardens.

Norman Baker: That is a common view, not just among street wardens but among police officers and local authority employees and officials.

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that, on Second Reading, several Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), said that they had spoken to warden scheme organisers and leaders who made it clear that they did not want extra powers?

Norman Baker: That is a helpful and accurate intervention. I refer Labour Members to the Second Reading debate when such comments were made. The matter is not as clear-cut as the Minister may wish to paint it. There is trepidation about the consequences of giving wardens extra powers when schemes are already operating successfully.

Ian Lucas: Is it not the case that the amendment relates to detention officers, whose powers, according to part 3 of schedule 4, are exercised in the police station, not in the community?

Norman Baker: That is not accurate, because if the hon. Gentleman looks at this group of amendments he will find that some of them do not relate to detention officers.

George Stevenson: Order. That is right. The amendments go wider than detention. They also deal with being accompanied by a constable in exercising certain powers.

Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has drawn me on to the subject of detention officers, and I am happy to discuss that.
 Officers who are civilians rather than police officers are to be given a range of powers that are obtrusive and liable to bring them into conflict with members of the public. It is quite likely that members of the public will not wish to be fingerprinted, subjected to intimate searches or photographed. They would be more likely to accept being subjected to such intrusive operations if they were required to do that by a police officer than by a civilian—particularly in the case of intimate searches, which is addressed by a later amendment, so we will discuss that when we reach it. 
 Paragraph 20 of schedule 4 gives these citizens the right to make an arrest at a police station for another offence. It would be odd if we had to rely on civilians to make an arrest in a police station; one might have thought that it would be possible to find a police officer somewhere in a police station to make that arrest, but apparently not. Perhaps we will have surrogate police stations that are staffed by civilians, with no police officers anywhere near them to make arrests. 
 That reminds me of a true case in Lewes. Three or four years ago, the police rang up the environmental health department of the district council—which was quite a distance away—to complain that the pub next door to the police station was causing a noise disturbance; health officers had to be called in to deal with that. 
 I hope that we do not get into a situation where there is an absence of police: thankfully, we are getting more police, and I pay tribute to the Government for that—and I hope that they will raise their target. However, if we are to have more police, I cannot believe that we will not be able to find one or two of 
 them to make an arrest at a police station, and yet part 3 of schedule 4 is giving powers to civilians to make such arrests.

Colin Challen: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the whole object of this exercise is to get the police out of the police stations and on to the streets?

Norman Baker: Of course I do, but I also understand that there is potential for conflict in giving civilians powers that the public will accept if they are exercised by police officers, but will not necessarily accept if they are exercised by civilians. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also understands that.
 Even if we manage to get the police out on the street, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there will be no police in the police stations, and that they will be entirely staffed by civilians. That would be a very curious situation, but it is what the hon. Gentleman implied. 
 I have explained why it is inappropriate for controversial powers to be exercised by CSOs or detention officers, unless they are accompanied by a constable. Other amendments in this group—Nos. 48, 49, 50, and so forth—focus on different powers of that kind, such as the power to stop vehicles, to carry our road checks, and to deal with cordoned areas. Those are operations that will require more than one person—it is difficult for one person to cordon off an area. Several personnel will be used in such circumstances, and therefore it would not be unreasonable to expect at least one constable to be around to ensure that the people who are helping him are doing their job properly. As for detention officers, it is not unreasonable to expect there to be one constable somewhere in a police station who can make an arrest. 
 Therefore, these are not radical amendments. On the contrary, they attempt to strike a balance by allowing the use of CSOs, to help the police and to remove the necessity for the police to do everything, while at the same time ensuring that the police are present in a supervisory capacity—even if that is merely a minimal supervisory capacity—to give the public confidence about situations that CSOs may not have anticipated or be experienced in dealing with.

Meg Munn: Some police forces might choose to use CSOs to support police constables. Others may not want to do so, because it may not be appropriate to their area. Do the amendments not limit police forces in employing community support officers, rather than give them flexibility?

Norman Baker: Of course they do, and I am open about that. Labour Members may disagree with my intention, but I am making the case that some of the powers being given to CSOs are a power too far for them and should be exercised only when they are accompanied by a constable.
 The amendments are reasonable and I hope that they gain the Minister's support. If he is not going to give me his support, I hope that he will at least give recognition to my case, which many police officers support throughout the country.

Nick Hawkins: As hon. Members will have noticed, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I have added our names to some of the amendments in the group. We support the general concept behind the measures proposed by the hon. Member for Lewes, partly because those who are at the sharp end—both rank and file police officers and many of those involved in warden schemes—feel so strongly about the matter.
 As my hon. Friend said, most of the people that the Minister consulted were not in favour of the CSOs. The scheme has been pushed by one force alone—the Metropolitan police. No doubt the Treasury is also exerting pressure in favour of the measures, as it regards them as a way of cutting costs and having policing on the cheap. The amendments specifically refer to the powers that the new individuals will have. 
 The Police Federation rightly made the point that many of the situations in which the Government envisage using CSOs are not low-level issues. The Police Federation says that the public is generally aware and supportive of police powers. Because of that support from the law-abiding public, there are reductions in the number of occasions when arrests need to be made forcibly. Without the minimal co-operation of most people being detained, police powers are inoperable. The extension of further powers to CSOs will expose CSOs to potentially some of the most difficult and dangerous situations faced by police officers, such as public order support operating at times of terrorist threat. 
 The Police Federation suggests that 
''the Government has not realised the difficulties involved in dealing with anti-social behaviour specifically earmarked for CSOs in the Bill. Anti-social behaviour is frequently caused by drunkenness and accompanied by aggressiveness and irrationality. Dealing with people in that state is no easy matter: it is not at the lower end of police competencies, rather it calls for considerable inter-personal skills, backed up by the authority of the office of constable. Dealing with anti-social behaviour cannot safely be undertaken by people with less training than police officers.''
 We share the concerns of the Police Federation about the supervision of CSOs. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I visited several warden schemes, including two in my constituency, which operate in different ways. Neither the police officers in charge of liaising with wardens nor those who run the warden schemes seek the kind of powers that the Government propose. Indeed, they are seriously worried that the position will become worse and that the provisions will lead to less effective policing. They believe that serious dangers will arise for CSOs without safeguards such as those suggested in the amendments.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman's concerns have also crossed my mind. We do not want to put CSOs in a position where they can endanger themselves or others while undertaking their duties. As a result of that concern, I went out with officers from the Met. There are frequent allusions to the Met's views being of no account, but it may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that the wardens were quite confident in their ability to discern when and where they should not intervene, and when and where they should call the Met for backup. They were
 more concerned about equipment and training than about their ability to discharge those powers on their own.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to speak from experience, but my experience and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire in other parts of the country is very different. The Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers in every part of the country, has strong views. I entirely accept that there will be concerns about training and equipment, but we dealt with those in other parts of the Bill. We strongly believe that the safeguard of having backup from someone with the office of constable is essential for the reasons that we have set out.
 I support what was said by the hon. Member for Lewes. In some ways this is the one of the most important areas of the Bill. The Government are putting forward something entirely new; the public will find it difficult to come to terms with it and I believe that there will be serious dangers. I am not reassured by the Minister's rather complacent approach, particularly his attempt to dismiss the views of rank-and-file police officers, because it suggests that, because the Met want this provision in this particular form, the Government must go along with it. That is not acceptable. We are still seriously concerned.

Annette Brooke: I want to reinforce the stand taken by the Police Federation; I believe that we should listen to the views of the operational policeman. It is striking that the federation should wholeheartedly support large portions of the Bill. We all know from our dealings with our local police force that officers are frustrated because of how they have to spend their time, and they want change in that area. However, it is significant, for example, that although the Police Federation accepts a huge range of powers without question, it opposes a detention officer arresting a person at a police station for another offence.
 I remain to be convinced that the Government have fully listened to such points. We are talking about people who are trying to protect their jobs, and who do not want those new people coming in, yet they support a large number of the recommendations and proposals. Nevertheless, they have huge concerns about some of them, which have not been adequately addressed. 
 I also share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about the need for the changes work. Putting people in confrontational positions and giving them powers about which there is considerable doubt, does not seem to be a recipe for success. All those involved should be working together to ensure the scheme's success. I should like some detailed attention to be paid to the points raised today by all hon. Members. Are we really listening to what the police are saying?

John Denham: Of course we have been listening to what people have been saying, and there are areas of genuine disagreement, but we believe that we are proceeding in a prudent manner. It is difficult to
 describe the amendments as anything more than wrecking amendments. They would so tie down the use of CSOs, saying that every CSO had to be accompanied by a police officer for any reasonable exercise of their duties, that it would make the position unworkable. It is a great shame that the Liberal Democrats should have proposed such a wrecking measure, and wider attention will be drawn to it in due course because it clearly contradicts everything that has been said in other places. It shows that they have failed to recognise the potential benefits to the community of enabling officers—not just CSOs—designated under schedule 4 to free policemen to go out in the community where the public want to see them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) said.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that the number of constraints, as he puts it, are limited? CSOs are to be given a range of powers that we have not sought to constrain. I should be grateful if he would represent that in his remarks.

John Denham: Let us take detention officers. There is a debate in the police service about CSOs. The Metropolitan police force is particularly committed to them, other forces are keen to develop them, some are less convinced and certain chief constables are opposed to them. There is nothing like that debate among those running our police forces about the other duties covered by schedule 4—those of detention officers, escort officers and investigating officers. However, the hon. Gentleman's lead amendment effectively seeks to make it impossible to use officers designated under schedule 4 for detention purposes.
 Many forces wish to use officers in such ways. Cheshire constabulary has suggested that, with alternative approaches to escort duties, it could free the equivalent of 15 officers to front-line duties. Cleveland force is looking to free 23 officers, and the police bureaucracy task force, which is due to complete its work at the end of July, has indicated that the equivalent of about 6,650 full-time officers a year are tied up dealing with prisoners in police stations. Faced with that commitment of police officer resources, it is sensible for the measures in schedule 4 to be used by properly trained, designated officers who are employed by the police service and accountable to the chief constable, and for the exercise of whose duties the chief constable is responsible. There are policing functions that do not need the full powers and expertise of a police officer. Those listed here can be carried out satisfactorily by fully-trained support staff with appropriate limited powers.

George Osborne: The Minister mentioned Cheshire police, my local force. That force welcomes back-room support for the police, such as detention officers; what is not welcome is front-line support. The officers do not want CSOs; they would rather have support in the back room than on the streets.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that he is in danger of signing up to a group of amendments that would cripple the back-room use of those officers as well. Perhaps he should have an urgent discussion with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire before we proceed to a vote.

Bridget Prentice: Opposition Members seem to be split about whether we should have civilian staff in police stations. It is not just the Metropolitan police force that is in favour of giving neighbourhood wardens extra powers. My local authority is looking forward to the opportunity to use wardens who have been given extra powers alongside CSOs—and the sooner the better.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Lady is capable of catching my eye if she wants to make a speech.

John Denham: I return to the point about saving police time and cutting down on bureaucracy. I shall quote from another source that has recently been made available to us, the ''Snapshot of the Criminal Justice System'' published by the Metropolitan police on 13 June. It found that on a given day 21,788 police hours were spent processing arrests. Obviously that is not an average day, but on the one that they looked at that is how much time was spent on that. One of the key objectives of this part of the Bill is to enable police forces to make significant inroads into that figure.
 Let us deal with the powers of investigating and detention officers. Our intention is that designated investigating and detention officers should carry out specialist and specific tasks that tie up police officers' time and prevent them from carrying out the visible duties and functions for which they are uniquely trained and equipped. 
 In imposing a dual requirement on police constables to accompany and supervise investigating or detention officers when carrying out some of their functions, rather than allowing the properly trained and accountable officers to perform tasks themselves, the amendments would undermine the flexibility which is a key feature of this part of the Bill. That is what the hon. Member for Lewes is attempting to do. 
 He is also attempting—I think unreasonably—to constrain other measures that we want to be carried out by CSOs, such as the power to stop vehicles for the purpose of a road check. If that could be done only when the CSO was accompanied by a police officer, it would remove their effectiveness in assisting with road checks. I see no strong basis for doing that. 
 If properly used by CSOs and members of accredited community safety schemes, the power to remove abandoned vehicles will help to tackle those problems and allay the concerns of our constituents. I do not know about the constituencies of other hon. Members present, but the blight caused to communities by abandoned vehicles, which may be vandalised, stolen from or burnt out, is a significant problem in my own. The task of dealing with that problem does not have to be restricted to police constables and that is why the Bill is framed as it is. If CSOs could exercise powers only when accompanied by a police officer, the idea of enabling more people to be there serving the community is destroyed in one fell swoop. 
 The power to enforce a cordon is another example. We put that power in the Bill, after discussion with the Metropolitan police and others, to free up police officers at the very times when additional demands are placed on them. The power is designed to be exercised 
 when there is a terrorist alert and under the powers a cordon can be erected only with the authority of a senior officer. However, if a city, a community or our country is faced with a terrorist alert and, subject to the provisions elsewhere in legislation, police officers are still required to supervise the enforcement of a cordon, as the amendments propose, we are clearly not adding to the protection of the public or the safety of the community. Nor would that help us to deal with a serious incident such as a terrorist alert. 
 I respect the hon. Member for Lewes in many ways, but sometimes he seems to depart to another planet, given some of the things that have happened round the world in the past 12 months. His arguments fail to take account of the need to equip a police force and a police service to respond flexibly and sensibly to demands that we hope we will never have to confront but which, in our heart of hearts, we know that we might have to.

Huw Irranca-Davies: A superintendent overseeing a batch of wardens who were awaiting the enhanced powers that would make them CSOs told me that he was genuinely concerned that they should be the eyes and the ears and have the discretion to deal with things on the ground, so that they would not suck the police into every incident. Does the Minister recognise that if CSOs were not given that discretion, that would negate their role?

John Denham: Yes. The amendments have been designed to achieve the very thing that the Police Federation and others said that they did not want. They would lead to a large number of police officers being tied down to supervising the work of CSOs and accredited community safety officers. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We believe, and it is now emerging as a consensus across the Committee, that with appropriate training and deployment we can rely on people to exercise their powers in a sensible and appropriate manner.
 I have made the key points that I wanted to. For the record, I point out that the chief constables of Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside and North Wales have all written to the Home Secretary, welcoming the arrangements to improve the visible police presence on the street through the appointment of CSOs, where that is considered appropriate by local decision makers, and under the direct control of the chief constable.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for the Minister's detailed response and for the arguments that he presented. He spoils his arguments by maligning the motives of those who oppose him. There is no need to accuse me and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) of deliberately tabling wrecking amendments. I have explained more than once our position with respect to CSOs. We support the concept but believe that CSOs should be community-based and enjoy the community's support. For that reason, they should not have powers that might bring them into conflict with the community.
 It is quite a simple position. The Minister may not agree with it, but it is not fair of him to accuse Liberal Democrat Members of trying to wreck the Bill.

Vera Baird: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is obvious that the amendments would inevitably limit the effectiveness of all these new types of officer?

Norman Baker: No, I do not accept that. I accept that they would limit the CSOs' powers, and by that strengthen CSOs by making them more acceptable to the community and therefore more effective. The implicit consequence of what the hon. and learned Lady says is that there should be no ceiling to the powers given to CSOs. She must accept that a line must be drawn between the powers exercised by police officers and those exercised by people who are not police officers. The argument today is about where that line is drawn.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendments would mean that police officers would not spend their time trapping villains but would be trapped with the CSOs for every minute of the day?

Norman Baker: I do not accept that, and Labour Members should allow me to develop my arguments. I have given way consistently, and will be happy to again when I have addressed the points.
 Where is the line to be drawn between civilianisation and professional policing? That is the nub. To what extent should we give police powers to— 
Mr. Hawkins rose—

Norman Baker: All right. I give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).

Nick Hawkins: I think that I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. Does not he share my surprise at the intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who on Second Reading said of her own constituency:
''A poll has been taken about whether the wardens would benefit from having powers of detention, and they do not want them. They fear that they would not be safe while exercising such powers and that they would be distanced from the community.''—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 117.]?
 That was the end of the hon. and learned Lady's speech.

Norman Baker: That was an interesting intervention. I am glad that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman will have to give way. What on earth has that got to do with what I said to him earlier? My wardens do not want the powers, but my chief constable might well want CSOs to have them.

George Stevenson: Order. We have spoken about hon. Members' motives and what was said on Second Reading. I hope that the Committee will return to the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will do that.

Norman Baker: I shall do my best, although the intervention by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was pertinent.
 I was talking about the line to be drawn between civilianisation and professional policing. It is nonsense to say that we do not want to free up police, where that is consistent with the objectives that I have set out. It is not sensible or accurate to say that we do not want civilians to help the police. There is widespread support for scene-of-crime officers or for people to analyse blood samples, or whatever. Plenty of people work for the police and, by doing so effectively, free up police. Sussex police in my constituency has been very good at freeing up officers, but the question is where to draw the line. I draw the line between powers that are non-confrontational and those that are potentially confrontational. When the confrontational powers are used, it would be appropriate for persons to be accompanied by police officers. 
 We heard that Labour Members want community support officers to be the eyes and ears of the police. I do, too, and there is nothing to dispute. It is an Aunt Sally put up to be knocked down. We also heard that they want the police to be freed up. I do, too, and we should consider the Minister's point about cordons. Undoubtedly many police officers are used to establish cordons, but whereas he wants no officers to be used in establishing cordons, I want one, perhaps in a particular area, to supervise the CSOs. That would not be terribly onerous or demanding and would not reduce the ability of the police to do other work. I am perfectly happy to see CSOs helping, as it is a sensible proposal and would be good use of their time, but the Minister is being disingenuous. 
 The Minister also mentioned escort officers. Unless I have misunderstood, escort officers do not feature in the amendments. CSOs and detention officers both feature, but escort officers do not. There is no suggestion, except in a later amendment, that their work should be curtailed. We have accepted escort officers as part of other Government proposals to free up the police and bring in civilian help. 
 The Minister's other point was that there was no objection to civilians' exercising the powers of detention officers. That is not true, and I can guess only that he has not seen the Police Federation briefing, which made it clear that it has objections to those proposals. A parliamentary briefing was sent out in June 2002, and on page 16 it says: 
''We oppose detention officers having the power to require attendance at a police station for fingerprinting . . . arrest at a police station for another offence . . . and require attendance at a police station for taking a sample''.
 Those are in paragraphs 19, 20—the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I referred—and 27 respectively. Therefore, it is not true to say that there are no objections to the powers. The Minister may wish to gloss over them, but they are there. The question comes down to this: where do we draw the line between the powers that are appropriate for police officers to exercise and those that are appropriate for civilians to exercise? 
 The Minister introduced the issue of terrorism and emergencies. We are all conscious of situations that could arise, especially post-11 September. Who could not be so conscious after seeing those terrible pictures 
 from New York? However, the Minister must recognise a point that was made during the debates on anti-terrorism legislation, which is relevant now because it relates to the powers of police constables and CSOs. He must be careful not to throw away the civil liberties agenda in his efforts to clamp down on terrorism. 
 It is no use saying that everything must go and there are no civil liberties implications, because there are. A balance must be struck and a line drawn between accountability and civil liberties and not unnecessarily restraining the police and giving them the powers necessary to do their job. The Minister draws the line where no police officer is required to be present before an area is cordoned off, and I would draw it where one constable must be present to supervise the CSOs.

Vera Baird: Amendment No. 149 would require that the powers conferred on a detention officer could be exercised only in the presence of and on the direction of a constable. That would mean that the constable would have to be in the same room when a detention officer searched a person, to tell them which pocket to search. The constable would have to be in the same room for intimate searches and fingerprinting, too, and as soon as the constable left the room, the detention officer would have no powers. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the amendment is not an attempt to wreck entirely the powers of the detention officer?

Norman Baker: The hon. and learned Lady is right to draw attention to that implication. I agree that it exists, but I do not believe that it goes quite that far. Indeed, the powers given to the detention officers are far more intrusive to the individual and their civil liberties than the powers given to CSOs, for example, to deal with cordoned-off areas. That is why I am not unhappy with a tighter rein being held on detention officers in that context than on CSOs in the slightly less intrusive situation of dealing with a cordoned-off area. In reacting to the powers, I am considering at all points what is right in civil liberties terms and what is right realistically to allow the police to do their duty. That is where I draw the line; the hon. and learned Lady and others may draw it elsewhere.

John Denham: Given that the hon. Gentleman has quoted the Police Federation a number of times in support of his argument, it would help if he would clarify whether he believes that his amendment accurately reflects the federation's views in the briefing submitted to members of the Committee.

Norman Baker: I am confident that I am fully aware of the Police Federation's views. They are not identical to the Liberal Democrats' views, but nor are they identical to those of the Government. Indeed, they are much closer to our views and to those of the Conservatives than they are to those of the Minister. As far as I can tell, the right hon. Gentleman appears to be keen to listen to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, but not to anyone else. I had lunch with representatives of the Police Federation yesterday, and they reiterated their opposition to CSOs and many other proposals that the Government have made, and their support for the
 amendments that my colleague and I are moving today.

Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker: For the last time, I think.

Vera Baird: I am grateful. If, as the amendment said, a detention officer could exercise his duties only in the presence of a police officer—granted, everyone who is searched has the right to be searched on their own in a room—it would be pointless to have the detention officer there at all, because the policeman could do the search.

Norman Baker: No. That is a very picky point, but if the hon. and learned Lady wishes me to deal with it, I will. There is no reason why a member of the public should not be searched by a detention officer with a constable present. It is also perfectly possible for the detention officer to carry out the rest of the work related to the search, such as logging the possessions in the person's pocket and doing the necessary paperwork, that would otherwise be completed by the constable. Such an exercise could free up police time.
 Again, there is a consistent division between the jobs that can realistically be freed up because they are non-confrontational, and those that involve intrusiveness and a potential erosion of civil liberties. As I said, that is where I have drawn the line, so the amendments are consistent. I am sorry that the Government take a different view. The amendment should be subject to a vote, and I ask that amendments Nos. 49 to 51 be subject to a vote when we reach schedule 4, so that we may express our opinions.

Meg Munn: I shall be brief. Selective quoting of the Police Federation has puzzled me, too. We have heard a great deal about issues relating to detention officers, and it seems clear from the briefing that the federation sent us that it supports most of the powers: non-intimate searches of detained persons, searches and examinations to ascertain identity, intimate searches of detained persons, fingerprinting without consent, warnings about intimate samples and non-intimate samples, photographing persons in police detention, and requiring a person arrested to account for certain matters. The federation supports CSOs' having a range of powers.

Ian Lucas: Having spent quite a lot of time in a police station as a solicitor advising defendants, I believe that one reason for the Police Federation's support in relation to taking photographs and fingerprints is that that is one of the biggest wastes of police time and one of the most tedious tasks that the police do. Any proposal that will free up the time that they spend on such tasks is excellent.

Meg Munn: I agree. I am also concerned that throughout the debate we have heard a lot about the powers being antagonistic. The reality is often that when a person is apprehended and taken to a police station, they may not like it, but they accept that they have to go through those procedures.

George Osborne: The hon. Lady quoted the Police Federation, so she obviously has a high regard for its judgment on these matters and presumably agrees with its list of 10 reasons against CSOs having powers in general.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman needs to follow the whole process. I am largely responding to the issues that the hon. Member for Lewes raised. I never said that I agreed with the Police Federation completely, and I hope that all hon. Members will use their judgment on the matter. The Government's argument, which I support, is that a range of powers can be given if the police force and their chief constable wish to do that. An amendment that provides that some actions can be taken only if a police constable is present clearly intends to wreck the role of CSOs, as the Minister said.
 I shall not speak at great length, but I have spent time with people—often young people—who have been arrested, and they are happy to undergo the procedures, which are straightforward. There is therefore no reason for CSOs not to undertake them.

George Stevenson: For clarification, does the hon. Member for Lewes wish to press amendment No. 149 to a Division?

Norman Baker: No. I shall beg leave to withdraw amendment No. 149, but I want to press amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51, en bloc if necessary, when we reach schedule 4.

George Stevenson: Yes, that is perfectly in order. There will be one vote on the three amendments.

Norman Baker: I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 143, in page 35, line 3, leave out subsection (8).

George Stevenson: With this, we may take the following: Amendment No. 42, in schedule 4, page 123, line 40, leave out paragraph (a).
 Government amendment No. 171. 
 Amendment No. 43, in page 124, line 22, leave out paragraph 2. 
 Government amendment No. 173. 
 Amendment No. 44, in page 124, line 32, leave out paragraph 3. 
 Government amendments Nos. 175 to 177.

Norman Baker: If the previous group of amendments was controversial, the next one will be even more so, in light of the Government's intention through amendment No. 171 to reinsert the power to detain, which was removed in the House of Lords. Members will be pleased to hear that I shall spare the Committee the philosophical argument, which is essentially the same as for the previous group of amendments. I shall therefore draw a line under that.
 However, there is a practical argument about the position in which we put CSOs if they are given the right to detain, irrespective of possible antagonism and the impact on community support to which I referred earlier. They could be asked to bite off more than they can chew. For example, CSOs could require a person who acts antisocially to give a name and address. Amendment No. 43 would remove that power. People who are already acting antisocially, and therefore not being helpful or engaging in friendly conversation, and are asked for something that they do not want to give will presumably refuse to do that. The CSO's response may be to try to detain the person, using reasonable force. ''Reasonable force'' is the concept that the amendment challenges. 
 CSOs therefore have the power to try, using reasonable force, to detain for 20 minutes someone who is behaving antisocially, may well be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which may be the cause of the behaviour, and refuses to give a name and address. I presume that that is the culmination of attempts to calm the situation, as I cannot imagine a CSO using the power immediately. The CSO will ring for a police officer. We are told that CSOs will free police time, but if they all detain people for half an hour, many telephone calls will be made to police stations, requesting police officers' attendance. There will therefore be more calls on the police to attend incidents. 
 The police officer who has been called will ask what is happening. The CSO will reply, ''I've got someone who's a bit drunk and won't give a name and address, and I'm holding him.'' The police will grade the call. A grade one call means that a life is threatened, a grade two call is less serious and so on. They will conclude that it is not a particularly serious call and doubtless it would receive the same priority that would be given now to a call by a member of the public along those lines. All hon. Members can identify cases in which the police have failed to attend a similar incident within 30 minutes, or even an hour, because of lack of manpower. Such a case happened in my constituency recently. Vandals were attempting to smash up Glynde station, which is unstaffed. Local residents made a citizen's arrest, held the vandals and called the police. The police said that they were answering a grade one call somewhere else and that they had no spare manpower, and it took them an hour and 20 minutes to arrive. That problem will not go away; the same problems will occur. 
 It is quite possible that a CSO could be in a position in which he or she—the CSO could be a she, of course—might have to hold a person or persons for 30 minutes while those being held were antagonistic, refusing to give their name and address and, possibly, under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Attempting to hold such a person for 30 minutes would be a deeply unpleasant experience for a CSO. Of course, if the police did not turn up within half an hour, the CSO would have to let the person go. What would be said to the CSO? Would the person say, ''Thank you very much for the conversation. It was very nice to meet you. Cheerio. Same time next week?''? Alternatively, would the person be deeply unpleasant and use a 
 stream of invective? Worse, could the situation lead to a fracas and violence because a person resisted detention by a person whom they did not consider to be a proper police officer? I suggest to the Minister that that situation is not fanciful, but quite likely.

George Osborne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as do my local police officers. They said that the individual who will be detained will probably not be alone but in the company of friends and associates who will stand around the CSO, exerting great pressure on that individual.

Norman Baker: That is exactly right. I understand and support the Government's entirely honourable motives, which are to deal with antisocial situations and low-level crime, which is currently not addressed. However, the Government are being unfair to put CSOs in situations in which they could be surrounded by boisterous individuals and have to hold the situation for half an hour without even the certainty that a police officer would attend within that time. CSOs would not have the same depth of training as police officers to deal with such a situation and they will not have further powers required to handle the situation. They will be exposed to vulnerable situations, such as a Friday night in a town centre. We should not put people in such situations.

Colin Challen: Perhaps we will hear from the Minister that the issue of training will be taken care of. The hon. Member for Lewes assumes that a CSO will immediately launch into a 30-minute detention in every case regardless of its circumstances. That should be compared with the current actions of the police. If a single police constable recognises a serious situation, he or she is unlikely to enter that situation and put him or herself at risk. The constable would call up a response team, and the call would probably trigger a fairly fast response. I imagine that the same thing would happen in this case and in case of a citizen's arrest. We are making a lot out of not very much.

Norman Baker: I can only respond by repeating points that I have already made. I am happy to recognise that CSOs will receive training. However, they will not and cannot receive the same depth of training as the police. They will not be trained as well as the police.
 I painted a scenario in which a CSO would not immediately charge into immediate detention for 30 minutes, but in which that would be the cumulative effect. I do not think that CSOs will go into a situation and say, ''Right, you'll be detained for 30 minutes.'' However, a situation may occur in which detention is the logical conclusion. A CSO will consider that that happens when a situation gets out of hand and is particularly stressful, but not if it is low key. CSOs will try to detain if the situation is potentially dangerous. I repeat that I believe that that will put them in a difficult situation that is unfair and exposes them unnecessarily. 
 Amendment No. 42 relates to the power of CSOs to issue fixed penalty notices. One issue relates to section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which is about wasting police time. That is extraordinary, and I hope that I have read the provision correctly—the Minister 
 will tell me if I am wrong. Does the provision apply to wasting a CSO's time? Does the definition of ''police'' include other people? 
 A range of issues have been exhausted during discussion of previous amendments but, clearly, the power that the Government wish to give to CSOs— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.